Conquer Club

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Depends on what nations government your reffering to.

*edit: my half-asleep morning-style spelling.

Government is...

..a changing idea, but necessary for the completion of civilization. There are always people who lean to the right and to the left who think that they are "right" in whatever they are arguing, though they don't realize that it's the fact that when both of their ideas are compromised and we reach a medium point that government hits the center of perfection.

john9blue wrote:...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Not true, but it makes a convenient cry for those who want to do away with healthcare reform.

Seems you prefer heads of insurance companies who have profit as their obligation to dictate our care instead of elected officials. MOST people don't, but you would never get that from the right wing news. You have to go to objective surveys AND actually look at the answers to all the questions, not just the ones conservatives conveniently worded to get the answers they want.

Government provides the fences and infrastructure that allows us to live peaceably together despite our different values and wants. Included in that "infrastructure" bit is understanding and protecting our natural systems, because they are just too vast and too complex for any other entity. Plus, they just don't offer direct and immediately observable profit in many cases.

I don't watch right-wing news, player. And I never claimed to prefer heads of insurance companies. You still didn't refute my claim though. I think it's a very interesting way to look at government.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Not true, but it makes a convenient cry for those who want to do away with healthcare reform.

Seems you prefer heads of insurance companies who have profit as their obligation to dictate our care instead of elected officials. MOST people don't, but you would never get that from the right wing news. You have to go to objective surveys AND actually look at the answers to all the questions, not just the ones conservatives conveniently worded to get the answers they want.

Government provides the fences and infrastructure that allows us to live peaceably together despite our different values and wants. Included in that "infrastructure" bit is understanding and protecting our natural systems, because they are just too vast and too complex for any other entity. Plus, they just don't offer direct and immediately observable profit in many cases.

yes cause that's not what liberals news does too? WTF honestly all sides do it you are blind as a fen bat you can't see it.

john9blue wrote:I don't watch right-wing news, player.

I thought you lived in the US?

Army of GOD wrote:Government is...

..a changing idea, but necessary for the completion of civilization. There are always people who lean to the right and to the left who think that they are "right" in whatever they are arguing, though they don't realize that it's the fact that when both of their ideas are compromised and we reach a medium point that government hits the center of perfection.

Wow AOG... I am proud of you (not that you were seeking my compliments)...

You made a post without a gay-sex reference.

Good Boy.

Government is...

1) ... Corruption.

2) ... equivalent to Organized Crime, but better-funded and bigger.

3) ... a waste.

4) ... still of the People, by the People, and for the People. (We just need to take it back.)

jimboston wrote:Government is...

1) ... Corruption.

All governments or just yours?

darvlay wrote:

jimboston wrote:Government is...

1) ... Corruption.

All governments or just yours?

All.

The US is by no means the worst if compared to the rest of the world. There are a few that may be less corrupt... but on a scale measuring all, the US would be closer to the ideal of "Not Corrupt At All" than the vast majority.

Of course, this is not an excuse... the failings of others does not forgive our own failures.

targetman377 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Not true, but it makes a convenient cry for those who want to do away with healthcare reform.

Seems you prefer heads of insurance companies who have profit as their obligation to dictate our care instead of elected officials. MOST people don't, but you would never get that from the right wing news. You have to go to objective surveys AND actually look at the answers to all the questions, not just the ones conservatives conveniently worded to get the answers they want.

Government provides the fences and infrastructure that allows us to live peaceably together despite our different values and wants. Included in that "infrastructure" bit is understanding and protecting our natural systems, because they are just too vast and too complex for any other entity. Plus, they just don't offer direct and immediately observable profit in many cases.

yes cause that's not what liberals news does too?

What liberal news? Right now, you have to work pretty hard to find any. You can find some on the internet, of course, though like anything on the 'net, you have to be careful that the source is legitimate. You might be able to get it on cable in some locations, though not here. NPR has 2 truly left-wing sources, 2 hours once a week in the evening, at a time that is not terribly convenient to most people. (I do try to catch it sometimes, but its not a priority).

targetman377 wrote:WTF honestly all sides do it you are blind as a fen bat you can't see it.

There is a group in the center that works very hard to be objective and just give truth. Sadly, too many people here don't even recognize the difference.

john9blue wrote:I don't watch right-wing news, player.

lol.. yet, that is all you quote. As I have said before, you have apparently never even heard true left wing sources.

john9blue wrote:And I never claimed to prefer heads of insurance companies.

No, but that is the effect of what you suggest.

john9blue wrote:You still didn't refute my claim though. I think it's a very interesting way to look at government.

I don't. I find it a convenient conservative label with no basis in our constitution or law or current reality.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Seems you prefer heads of insurance companies who have profit as their obligation to dictate our care instead of elected officials. MOST people don't, but you would never get that from the right wing news.

Actually... I want to dictate my own Health Care... and I can do that in a Free Market.

I can't in a Gov't controlled market.

In a Free Market I don't need to buy Insurance if I don't want... of course if I make that decision, then I would have to live (or die) with the consequences; which may mean NO care.

That is and should remain an individual decision. It's been that way since the dawn of man... why do we now want to 'cede that decision to a Corrupt Gov't?

Government is the means with which a society funds things that would not be available to everyone individually. Individually we can not all afford a standing army, a road network, police, healthcare, or garbage collection. Sure, government will rarely keep the best interest of the country to heart if you aren't constantly kicking them in the ribs, but they are necessary for a society to survive.

Frigidus wrote:Government is the means with which a society funds things that would not be available to everyone individually.

this is a statist cognitive error

government is one means by which a society could fund things that would not be available to everyone individually

As Proudhon correctly explained in his treatise Qu'est-ce que la propriété?, there are other, more just and efficient, means available.

Too big. We need city-states.

Frigidus wrote:Government is the means with which a society funds things that would not be available to everyone individually. Individually we can not all afford a standing army, a road network, police, healthcare, or garbage collection. Sure, government will rarely keep the best interest of the country to heart if you aren't constantly kicking them in the ribs, but they are necessary for a society to survive.

Take Healthcare and Garbage Collection out of that... and I will agree with what you say.

In cities you need Gov't to handle garbage collection... in rural and many suburban areas plenty or people handle this on thier own and/or pay private companies.

Healthcare is obvious...

saxitoxin wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Government is the means with which a society funds things that would not be available to everyone individually.

this is a statist cognitive error

government is one means by which a society could fund things that would not be available to everyone individually

As Proudhon correctly explained in his treatise Qu'est-ce que la propriété?, there are other, more just and efficient, means available.

Please tell us how you would fund an Army or build a highway system like we have in the US without Gov't.

nietzsche wrote:Too big. We need city-states.

erudite and correct

As Proudhon noted, the modern centralized state should be utterly abolished in favor of federal, cooperative communities. Coercive institutions at all levels must be minimized. Government is the most coercive institution of all.

a necessary evil.

jimboston wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Government is the means with which a society funds things that would not be available to everyone individually.

this is a statist cognitive error

government is one means by which a society could fund things that would not be available to everyone individually

As Proudhon correctly explained in his treatise Qu'est-ce que la propriété?, there are other, more just and efficient, means available.

Please tell us how you would fund an Army or build a highway system like we have in the US without Gov't.

In Proudhon mutualist theory, a two-part test would be applied to determine the necessary functions of government:

(1) Is the function analogous to the minimal definition of a sovereign state, without which a state would not be sovereign? (e.g. monopoly on force, sovereign currency, etc.) If yes, the function is justified. In this case an Army is a legitimate function of the State.

(2) Is the function both:
(a) critical to the continued existence of civilization
(b) can only be accomplished through a monopoly
If yes to both, the function is justified. As roads are necessary to modern civilization and there is finite land, a highway system is a legitimate function of the state. A bus system is not. Libraries are not. Parks are not. Garbage disposal is not. Land zoning is. Records and vital statistics are. Education is not. Care for orphans is. Unemployment insurance is not. Courts are.

Everything not the legitimate function of the state can be more efficiently achieved by cooperatives, which are non-coercive and provide marketplace competition without the intrinsic evils of capitalism. When private property is abolished and the State minimized to its most basic components, people's cooperatives will be able to fill (almost) all government functions. Instead of 49% of the population being subject to the will of 51%, everyone will enjoy absolute freedom and true liberty.

Hybrid social-capitalist systems are fundamentally unworkable and doomed to systemic breakdown and failure as we are now witnessing.

saxitoxin wrote: If yes to both, the function is justified. As roads are necessary to modern civilization and there is finite land, a highway system is a legitimate function of the state. A bus system is not. Libraries are not. Parks are not. Garbage disposal is not. Land zoning is. Records and vital statistics are. Education is not. Care for orphans is. Unemployment insurance is not. Courts are.

Everything not the legitimate function of the state can be more efficiently achieved by cooperatives, which are non-coercive and provide marketplace competition without the intrinsic evils of capitalism. When private property is abolished and the State minimized to its most basic components, people's cooperatives will be able to fill all government functions.

Hybrid social-capitalist systems are fundamentally unworkable and doomed to systemic breakdown and failure as we are now witnessing.

Aside from your whole "intrinsic evils of capitalism" thingy... this sounds very LIbertarian-Like to me.

I think most libertarian minded people would agree (generally) with what you say should be handle by the gov't and shouldn't be.

You're term "cooperative"... I could replace with "local government".

In the US for example, I don't think the Feds need to be involved in primary education... but I do think we need some basic public education, which is best handled at the State or even the County/City/Town level.

Also... can you like um tell me where there is systemic breakdown and failure??? I don't see it. I see problems and challenges... humans have always and will always face these. I don't see systemic failure.

jimboston wrote:
Aside from your whole "intrinsic evils of capitalism" thingy... this sounds very LIbertarian-Like to me.

Jim - there is a lot of similarity (not enough) between libertarianism and anarcho-communism. Only government media propaganda schilling a cartoonish like view of anarcho-communism in the filthy capitalistic west has massaged people's views to thinking of it as something it is not.

jimboston wrote:I think most libertarian minded people would agree (generally) with what you say should be handle by the gov't and shouldn't be.

If allowed access to unbiased information, I think everyone - except the corrupt princes of imperialism on their purpled thrones - would agree.

jimboston wrote:You're term "cooperative"... I could replace with "local government".

All government - even local government - is coercive.

The US has one excellent model of cooperatives that it has rather been a trail-blazer in the west, that being the credit union. A non-coercive, anti-capitalist institution that works and functions with market-like efficiency but without the evils of capitalism.

These people's cooperatives can also fill most other functions of government - unemployment insurance, health care, public transit, libraries, education, etc. - if private property were abolished and the State necessarily restrained.

jimboston wrote:Also... can you like um tell me where there is systemic breakdown and failure??? I don't see it.

Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. - Rosa Luxemburg

saxitoxin wrote:

jimboston wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Government is the means with which a society funds things that would not be available to everyone individually.

this is a statist cognitive error

government is one means by which a society could fund things that would not be available to everyone individually

As Proudhon correctly explained in his treatise Qu'est-ce que la propriété?, there are other, more just and efficient, means available.

Please tell us how you would fund an Army or build a highway system like we have in the US without Gov't.

In Proudhon mutualist theory, a two-part test would be applied to determine the necessary functions of government:

(1) Is the function analogous to the minimal definition of a sovereign state, without which a state would not be sovereign? (e.g. monopoly on force, sovereign currency, etc.) If yes, the function is justified. In this case an Army is a legitimate function of the State.

(2) Is the function both:
(a) critical to the continued existence of civilization
(b) can only be accomplished through a monopoly
If yes to both, the function is justified. As roads are necessary to modern civilization and there is finite land, a highway system is a legitimate function of the state. A bus system is not. Libraries are not. Parks are not. Garbage disposal is not. Land zoning is. Records and vital statistics are. Education is not. Care for orphans is. Unemployment insurance is not. Courts are.

Everything not the legitimate function of the state can be more efficiently achieved by cooperatives, which are non-coercive and provide marketplace competition without the intrinsic evils of capitalism. When private property is abolished and the State minimized to its most basic components, people's cooperatives will be able to fill (almost) all government functions. Instead of 49% of the population being subject to the will of 51%, everyone will enjoy absolute freedom and true liberty.

Hybrid social-capitalist systems are fundamentally unworkable and doomed to systemic breakdown and failure as we are now witnessing.

I don't see where you particularly answered his question. Could you clarify?

saxitoxin wrote:

jimboston wrote:You're term "cooperative"... I could replace with "local government".

All government - even local government - is coercive.

Your use of "cooperative" is simply another term for "local government". It must be, else those functions you claim as necessary could not be maintained.